Hi, On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> By the way, do you think anybody still uses "git merge-trees"? > > > > IMO this is the only viable way to a non-broken merge-recursive. Removing > > it would be counterproductive. > > Do you mean you don't think > > Subject: Re: git-merge segfault in 1.6.6 and master > Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:38:56 -0800 > Message-ID: <7vaaw7j7mn.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > ... > In the meantime, I think applying this patch is the right thing to do. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: merge-recursive: do not return NULL only to cause segfault > > would help us? Sorry, I cannot have a look at this now. But in the long run, I think that it gets tiring to chase all kinds of weird interactions between unpack_trees(), the rename detection and the recursive merge. I could see merge-trees as a viable alternative approach. Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html